At the tone, leave your name and message and I'll get back to you."Jim, it's Beth. You have the vet's number, the flea collar and extra litter. One thing I forgot, keep him away from the other cats. He's not very discriminating."

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Regardless on if it is the states job to define marriage, the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protects still applies to the states. And since every states treats married people differently than non-married people they must allow same sex marriage.

"The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War."- from WikipediaSince when were same sex couples slaves?

"A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens." - From the same wikipedia page. Guess you should have kept reading.

The equal protection clause was a result of the end of slavery, but does not limit its power to only former slaves.

It says "rights equal to those of white citizens". That, in and off itself, means the amendment was for former slaves who were black. It says nothing about same sex couples. That is left to the states to decide and now the court wishes to strip that right from the Constitution. If a state wants to offer marriage to same sex couples, sobeit. But, follow the Constitution. The Supremes should stay out of it.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Right, but if tax law says that Couple A can take a tax deduction, then denying the same deduction to Couple B because of what they like to do between the sheets is an obvious violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The idea of dialog is to read what the first poster said. All of it. I'll point it out to you: ...PROVIDE ANOTHER TERM...

And these sorts of social changes should be accomplished through legislative and electoral processes, not through judicial activists ramming THEIR view of changed mores down the throats of those who do see the world in different terms.

And those "different terms" have nothing to do with hating people but with seeing consequences for behavior. We think a guy who cheats on his wife is a moral failure, not a person in the discriminated class of Adulterers.

The court are doing what the courts were designed to do.

I bet you didn't say that when GW Bush got elected in 2000.

At the tone, leave your name and message and I'll get back to you."Jim, it's Beth. You have the vet's number, the flea collar and extra litter. One thing I forgot, keep him away from the other cats. He's not very discriminating."

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Right, but if tax law says that Couple A can take a tax deduction, then denying the same deduction to Couple B because of what they like to do between the sheets is an obvious violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The idea of dialog is to read what the first poster said. All of it. I'll point it out to you: ...PROVIDE ANOTHER TERM...

And these sorts of social changes should be accomplished through legislative and electoral processes, not through judicial activists ramming THEIR view of changed mores down the throats of those who do see the world in different terms.

And those "different terms" have nothing to do with hating people but with seeing consequences for behavior. We think a guy who cheats on his wife is a moral failure, not a person in the discriminated class of Adulterers.

The court are doing what the courts were designed to do.

I bet you didn't say that when GW Bush got elected in 2000.

Nope, but that court went against precedent. You'd know that if you'd read the case. Which you haven't.

A lie will circle the globe before the truth has the chance to put its boots on. Terry Pratchett.

If you plan on winning based on the other team's best player getting hurt, and not on your team's abilities, you don't deserve to win anything.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Right, but if tax law says that Couple A can take a tax deduction, then denying the same deduction to Couple B because of what they like to do between the sheets is an obvious violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The idea of dialog is to read what the first poster said. All of it. I'll point it out to you: ...PROVIDE ANOTHER TERM...

And these sorts of social changes should be accomplished through legislative and electoral processes, not through judicial activists ramming THEIR view of changed mores down the throats of those who do see the world in different terms.

And those "different terms" have nothing to do with hating people but with seeing consequences for behavior. We think a guy who cheats on his wife is a moral failure, not a person in the discriminated class of Adulterers.

The court are doing what the courts were designed to do.

I bet you didn't say that when GW Bush got elected in 2000.

Nope, but that court went against precedent. You'd know that if you'd read the case. Which you haven't.

I know that Bush won Florida fair and square. At least 10 different non-partisan groups confirmed that.

At the tone, leave your name and message and I'll get back to you."Jim, it's Beth. You have the vet's number, the flea collar and extra litter. One thing I forgot, keep him away from the other cats. He's not very discriminating."

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Regardless on if it is the states job to define marriage, the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protects still applies to the states. And since every states treats married people differently than non-married people they must allow same sex marriage.

"The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War."- from WikipediaSince when were same sex couples slaves?

"A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens." - From the same wikipedia page. Guess you should have kept reading.

The equal protection clause was a result of the end of slavery, but does not limit its power to only former slaves.

It says "rights equal to those of white citizens". That, in and off itself, means the amendment was for former slaves who were black. It says nothing about same sex couples. That is left to the states to decide and now the court wishes to strip that right from the Constitution. If a state wants to offer marriage to same sex couples, sobeit. But, follow the Constitution. The Supremes should stay out of it.

If you think the Fourteenth Amendment "was for former slaves who were black," do you think the Fourteenth Amendment is void now that anybody who was alive in 1868 is dead?

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Regardless on if it is the states job to define marriage, the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protects still applies to the states. And since every states treats married people differently than non-married people they must allow same sex marriage.

"The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War."- from WikipediaSince when were same sex couples slaves?

Well, the amendment applies to YOU too, and I'm guessing you are not a former slave - unless, of course, you're like 160 years old, in which case I'd sure like to know what your secret to longevity is.

Next?

Last edited by Boss302 on April 10th, 2014, 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Regardless on if it is the states job to define marriage, the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protects still applies to the states. And since every states treats married people differently than non-married people they must allow same sex marriage.

"The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War."- from WikipediaSince when were same sex couples slaves?

"A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens." - From the same wikipedia page. Guess you should have kept reading.

The equal protection clause was a result of the end of slavery, but does not limit its power to only former slaves.

It says "rights equal to those of white citizens". That, in and off itself, means the amendment was for former slaves who were black. It says nothing about same sex couples. That is left to the states to decide and now the court wishes to strip that right from the Constitution. If a state wants to offer marriage to same sex couples, sobeit. But, follow the Constitution. The Supremes should stay out of it.

The 14th amendment was the aimed at the states, to say that ALL PEOPLE would have equal protection under any states' laws. It does not say former slave, blacks, other racial minorities, it says all people. Same sex couples are people and therefor the 14th amendment applies to them.

It was written for the states, but the SCOTUS said that it applies to the federal government in 1954 in Bolling v Sharpe and last year applied it to the federal level when they struck down DOMA. Only fools still think that it will not be applied to the states and it is only a matter of time.

CarpaDM wrote:It says "rights equal to those of white citizens". That, in and off itself, means the amendment was for former slaves who were black.

Is that the Readers' Digest version? It must be, because the actual equal protection clause reads like this:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Regardless on if it is the states job to define marriage, the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protects still applies to the states. And since every states treats married people differently than non-married people they must allow same sex marriage.

"The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War."- from WikipediaSince when were same sex couples slaves?

Luckily for us, judges base their legal decisions on sources slightly more in-depth and reputable than Wikipedia...

If 'we" ditch the social conservatism, "you" need to ditch the social liberal one.

That's an interesting idea, considering that you actually AGREE with social liberals on this issue.

Many of liberal ideals are fine, and THIS ISSUE is NOT about cost. In the grand scheme of fiscal policies, the few same sex (which were talking thousands vs. hundreds of thousands of hetro-sexual ones) marriages, isn't a great fiscal burden on anyone.

But when talking the cost of social liberalism. You need to look at other aspects of them. Keeping unemployment benefits running, for many, going into years is a far more expensive issue than same sex. Also the vague immigration policy (it's hard to follow sometimes) and the ACA, which in my opinion is totally social liberalism.

Take away the FOX and Rush doom and gloom, both of those still look to be very expensive issues and no one really knows the cost of parts of the ACA, given the fact that much of it has been pushed off due to political considerations.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Regardless on if it is the states job to define marriage, the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protects still applies to the states. And since every states treats married people differently than non-married people they must allow same sex marriage.

"The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War."- from WikipediaSince when were same sex couples slaves?

"A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens." - From the same wikipedia page. Guess you should have kept reading.

The equal protection clause was a result of the end of slavery, but does not limit its power to only former slaves.

It says "rights equal to those of white citizens". That, in and off itself, means the amendment was for former slaves who were black. It says nothing about same sex couples. That is left to the states to decide and now the court wishes to strip that right from the Constitution. If a state wants to offer marriage to same sex couples, sobeit. But, follow the Constitution. The Supremes should stay out of it.

The 14th amendment was the aimed at the states, to say that ALL PEOPLE would have equal protection under any states' laws. It does not say former slave, blacks, other racial minorities, it says all people. Same sex couples are people and therefor the 14th amendment applies to them.

It was written for the states, but the SCOTUS said that it applies to the federal government in 1954 in Bolling v Sharpe and last year applied it to the federal level when they struck down DOMA. Only fools still think that it will not be applied to the states and it is only a matter of time.

Viking Speaks wrote:But when talking the cost of social liberalism. You need to look at other aspects of them. Keeping unemployment benefits running, for many, going into years is a far more expensive issue than same sex.

There's a rather large cost to not having unemployment benefits as well - less taxable income (unemployment IS taxable), less consumer spending, more foreclosures, more welfare and food stamp spending, and on and on.

Same is true of any "liberal" social program. Eliminate or cut back on Social Security, and you'll have tens of millions of senior citizens not spending anymore, losing their houses, and having to move in with their families, which puts economic pressure on them. Eliminate or cut back direct welfare spending, and you'll have huge increases in crime and massive social unrest, which costs money to deal with. Eliminate or cut back on things like Medicaid, and that hurts the recipients' ability to maximize their earnings potential, and their employers will see reductions in productivity.

All of this has a "trickle down" effect on the economy at large - people on unemployment, social security and welfare are consumers too. If they're buying less goods and services, then the margins for the companies that sell them those goods and services begin to thin out, meaning they buy less and pay less taxes, and have to let workers go. These laid off workers consume less, pay less taxes, and so on. All of this has a direct impact on the deficit that conservatives say they're so concerned about. It's a vicious circle.

None of this is about the moral aspects of kicking underprivileged folks to the curb - it's about cost. Pay for this stuff on the front end, or pay for it on the back end. The main difference between liberals and conservatives is that it makes sense to liberals to pay on the front end, while conservatives often don't see the sense in paying at all.

Last edited by Boss302 on April 10th, 2014, 3:53 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Schaerr thinks polygamy or even patriarchal marriage (female primary parent and unpaid worker; male breadwinner and sole owner of all property, even that earned or inherited by the wife) is child-centric? Yeah, right.

Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West say it better than I do and their writing is consistent with all of the recent court rulings (all support same-sex marriage) and it will be consistent with the outcome of this case and of the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court is not going to come down on the wrong side of history. It has no incentive to look stupid. And this court will rule 2-1 in favor of same-sex marriage. If not, then it will rule 3-0. This issue is over and done with. There is only the matter of the courts putting their stamp of approval on this matter. Yes, the Post has to cover a Landmark court case occurring in Denver, but there is no suspense as this issue has been decided over and over and over and over again by the courts.

One remark - It is very difficult to take hatred of gays and let that hatred inform your religious beliefs (no religious person is going around saying gluttons or other sinners can't get married) and then try to mold that into credible legal arguments. The failure to adequately do this shows in every same-sex marriage case the religious right has argued.

And this is what Dahlia and Sonja wrote: "The “marriage is a purely state issue” rhetoric has been around for some time. It’s become a familiar default argument, maybe because it sounds fair and feels safe. But having “evolved” this far on gay marriage, the time has come to evolve our own thinking on what is really at stake when we talk about marriage equality. We must embrace that this is a constitutional and not a democratic issue. Equality is not a popularity contest. This is hardly a radical argument. It’s Supreme Court doctrine: Our rights to be treated as equal and full citizens do not evaporate when we cross state lines. Rather there are certain essential liberties, even in the realm of marriage, we all enjoy regardless of our ZIP code.

Obama wasn’t technically wrong to observe that states have broad latitude to fashion their own marriage rules and usually have to recognize marriages solemnized in other states. But that state power has important constitutional limitations. The Supreme Court recognized, in its landmark 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia that the “right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals” and “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” After Loving, marriage is deemed a “fundamental freedom” protected by the Constitution, and states cannot deny an individual of this basic right without an exceedingly good reason. If it’s not a good enough reason for a state to prohibit someone from getting married because he committed a crime or failed to pay child support, then it’s clearly not enough that he happens to be gay.

We pause now for a quick constitutional law primer: The Supreme Court has decided marriage cases under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights while the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination. Seen as a denial of a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause, the case for marriage equality for same-sex couples should be obvious. Viewed as a matter of discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause it becomes slightly more complicated. The court has acknowledged that certain groups of people are more likely to face discrimination and thus it demands more of the government when it tries to treat them differently. The court has been coy, however, about telling us whether people who are denied a government benefit based on their sexual orientation receive this kind of heightened protection. But the logic for stronger constitutional protection is undeniable. Like racial minorities and women, homosexuals as a group have historically faced societal and government discrimination based on a personal characteristic they cannot control. Thus, as with race and gender, the federal courts must be the guardians of justice and ensure that they are treated equally."

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Right, but if tax law says that Couple A can take a tax deduction, then denying the same deduction to Couple B because of what they like to do between the sheets is an obvious violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The idea of dialog is to read what the first poster said. All of it. I'll point it out to you: ...PROVIDE ANOTHER TERM...

And these sorts of social changes should be accomplished through legislative and electoral processes, not through judicial activists ramming THEIR view of changed mores down the throats of those who do see the world in different terms.

And those "different terms" have nothing to do with hating people but with seeing consequences for behavior. We think a guy who cheats on his wife is a moral failure, not a person in the discriminated class of Adulterers.

The court are doing what the courts were designed to do.

I bet you didn't say that when GW Bush got elected in 2000.[/quote]

Nope, but that court went against precedent. You'd know that if you'd read the case. Which you haven't.[/quote]

I know that Bush won Florida fair and square. At least 10 different non-partisan groups confirmed that.[/quote]